The sheer lunacy of the battle to protect vote fraud continues unabated, as CBS News reports “Pennsylvania’s highest court on Tuesday told a lower court judge to stop a tough new law requiring voters to show photo identification from taking effect in this year’s presidential election if he finds voters cannot get easy access to ID cards or if he thinks voters will be disenfranchised.”

In other words, the lower court judge, Robert Simpson – who already denied an injunction to keep the voter ID law from going into effect – has been instructed to try again, and think real hard until he comes up with a rationale for blocking the law. Simpson already considered questions of “disenfranchisement,” but he’ll have to reconsider until he comes up with the answer leftist groups want to hear.

The marquee case of cruel “disenfranchisement” in Pennsylvania, 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite, cheerfully popped out and picked up her voter ID cardthe day after Judge Simpson handed down his ruling. Another “hard case” cited in the CBS report, a different 93-year-old woman named Bea Booker, complained that she was “too infirmed to travel to a driver’s license center to get an ID.” Well, then how the heck is she going to vote? Oh, that’s right: absentee ballot. Which does not require a photo ID.

But on and on down the rabbit hole we tumble, with increasingly ridiculous “arguments” offered against the most elementary, common-sense measures for protecting ballot integrity. We’re not allowed to take meaningful steps to secure our ballots, which makes it extremely difficult to catch ineligible voters… and that very lack of convictions is cited as evidence that we don’t need a better system to prevent vote fraud. Those thousands of ineligible voters turning up on the rolls in state like Ohio and Indiana? Don’t worry about them. The sizable number of ineligible voters caught in the state of Florida after actually voting in prior elections? Try to forget that happened.

Our super-government can force you to do a great many things, including purchase government-approved health coverage from private companies, but asking you to produce the minimal documentation required to claim a free voter ID card, if you’re one of the small minority of people who don’t already have an acceptable form of identification? Why, that’s unthinkable, and probably racist.

The CBS report concludes by noting some Pennsylvania residents who sued against its voter ID law “had raised the claim that they might be unable to vote because they lacked the necessary documents, such as an official birth record, to get the law’s ID card of last resort: A state nondriver photo ID that is subject to federal requirements because it can be used for non-voting purposes, such as boarding an airplane.”

What? You need a photo ID to board an airplane? Is anyone at the Justice Department working to strike down this obviously racist conspiracy to keep people of color from flying? Should some judges be required to think long and hard about the unfairness of placing horrendous roadblocks in the path of those who wish to engage in the countless activities that require proper identification?